[Zdfjpbth]

I'm off to work.

[nretdjuend]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unlike Oerdin, I know don't WTF I'm talking about.

Fixed to reflect reality.

[avappyboalt]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Fixed to reflect reality. As novice as you are to reality, I question your assumptionof th reality that Dems in power as of Nov. represent a mandate for withdrawl from Iraq.

Last I heard there was no nation wide referendmum on the ballot and more tot he point the nearest thing (exit polls) showed dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq was the third most important item, behind Repug corruption and, Repug profligate spending.

Even were one to say Iraq war dissatisfaction was a compelling reason for Dems it by no means is an advocacy (or a mandate by any stretch) of withdrawl from Iraq merely more competant handling of the war. (like using the correct amount of troops no?)

[secondmortgages]

And Congress is given the power to declare war, not make it, and all that. As I said, the courts would probably refuse to rule either way.

And in this case it doesn't really matter since Bush had the authorization to enter Iraq.

[apodildNoli]

We're glad to have someone of your stature on our side, Kuci.

[Teprophopay]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


As novice as you are to reality, I question your assumptionof th reality that Dems in power as of Nov. represent a mandate for withdrawl from Iraq. Looks like YOU are the novice to reality. Continue on with your delusions that Americans support this war if you must, I guess.

[shiciapsisy]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [...]

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; The rule in question here is redeployment (incidentally, the House bill is binding). So yes, this does pass Constitutional muster. There's plent of precedent to back up the general idea (Little v. Barreme, Youngstown v. Sawyer, Hamdan, etc.).

That said, a court decision could go easily against Congress, and defunding (as mandated by the recently introduced Feingold-Reid legislation) doesn't need to get past a veto.

[nithhysfusy]

If the funding were cut off, would the Bushites be cruel enough to keep the army there anyway for a few months without any real funding just to get some 'support our troops' BS headlines?

[Edifsdubs]

Actually it can't.

[Xiciljed]

It would be nice if certain people, actually made even a half assed attempt at backing up the arguement he's attempting to make.

[xtrudood]

L v. B doesn't seem to be relevant to the question of relative jursidiction (CINC vs. power to declare war), and neither does Y v. S. Nor does Hamdan; as mentioned above, that deals with the regulation of the military, not deployment. How, exactly, does deployment not fall under the umbrella of "government and regulation" of the military? This is an arbitrary distinction that you're making. Again, I'm not referring to the power to declare war, but the specific part of the Constitution I cited which confers jurisdiction to Congress in imposing statutory guidelines on how the military is governed.

The 1943 Congress would not have been able to vote against Operation Overlord, or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again, take another look at Little. The President's war powers are described by statute. Congress specifically limited the CinC's ability to seize French vessels, and it was upheld by SCOTUS.

[Nubtoubrem]

gov·ern·ment /ˈgʌvərnmənt, ‑ərmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[guhv-ern-muhnt, ‑er-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
6. direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct. reg·u·la·tion /ˌrɛgyəˈleɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reg-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct.

[Illirmpipse]

Ramo: exactly. "Government and regulation" refers to, essentially, the code of conduct of the military while carrying out its operations, not the operations themselves.

Note that the only case you cited that uses that clause, Hamdan, refers to the UCMJ.

[Timoxari]

And your "code of conduct" theory doesn't hold up in light of Little.

[Carol]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Only a stupid, stupid **** who was totally childishly ignorant would be idiotic enough to argue that Congress doesn't have the power to put strings on money. It's a good thing I didn't argue that, then.

[SHUSIATULSE]

Originally posted by Ramo
CinC isn't redundant. Read the Jackson concurrence in Youngstown. The President can act, but not in defiance of statute.

And hostilities had started. It's an embargo where vessels and cargo benefiting France are seized. Acceptable hostilities against France were prescribed to minute detail (a much narrower order than the legislation that the House apssed). I don't see how Congress should have jurisdiction over military forces in prosecuting an embargo, but not in peacekeeping in a civil war. The same way that Congress can detail the rules for the embargo, but not the actual operations themselves. Congress didn't pass a law to start the attack on Fallujah, nor could they nor should they. Nor can they pass a law to prevent it within an already-assigned mission. Congress does not have the power to legislate disposition of forces.

[royarnekara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's a good thing I didn't argue that, then. Indeed you did. You claimed that Congress couldn't require an end date to operations in Iraq as a condition to providing current funding. As such you display your ignorance.

That is EXACTLY how Congress forced the withdrawal from Vietnam. By placing dates, conditions, and requirements (collectively referred to as strings) on the money. You have ignorantly claimed that it is unconstitutional for Congress to do that when in fact that's exactly what Congress exists to do.